This article summarizes reporting by NBC Los Angeles and Jonathan Lloyd.

Stolen Cessna 172 Crashes into Hangar at Van Nuys Airport

A security breach at Van Nuys Airports (VNY) early Thursday morning resulted in the theft and subsequent crash of a single-engine aircraft. According to reporting by NBC Los Angeles, a suspect broke into a flight school facility and attempted to commandeer a Cessna 172 before crashing the plane into a nearby hangar building. Authorities have confirmed that the aircraft never successfully became airborne.

Law enforcement officials, including the Los Angeles Airport Police (LAXPD) and the FBI, responded immediately to the scene. The suspect was taken into custody without incident, and no injuries were reported on the ground or in the aircraft. The incident has prompted a federal investigation into the security protocols at one of the world’s busiest general aviation airports.

Timeline of the Theft and Crash

The incident began in the pre-dawn hours of December 18, 2025. According to a timeline compiled from reports by NBC4 and KTLA, the suspect trespassed onto the airport grounds around 4:00 AM. The individual targeted a flight training facility located near the 7900 block of Balboa Boulevard, an area densely populated with Commercial-Aircraft academies and hangars.

The Break-in and Attempted Taxi

After gaining access to the flight school, the suspect boarded a white single-engine Cessna 172. Around 5:00 AM, the suspect attempted to operate the aircraft. NBC Los Angeles reports that the plane was stolen directly from the flight school’s ramp.

“A small plane crashed in a building at Van Nuys Airport after it was stolen from a flight school, officials tell NBC4 Investigates.”

— NBC Los Angeles

While the suspect managed to start the engine and begin taxiing, they lost control of the aircraft before reaching a runway. The plane surged forward and impacted a hangar nose-first. Aerial video footage broadcast by KTLA showed the aircraft’s nose embedded in the metal siding of the structure, leaving a distinct hole in the exterior wall. The propeller and nose cone sustained significant damage, rendering the aircraft inoperable.

Suspect and Legal Proceedings

Following the crash, LAXPD officers arrested the suspect at the scene. CBS Los Angeles and other local outlets have identified the individual as 37-year-old Ceffareno Michael Logan. He was booked on suspicion of burglary and theft of an aircraft.

According to verified reports from Patch and NTD News, bail for Logan has been set at $150,000. As of the latest updates, authorities have not disclosed a motive for the theft, nor have they confirmed whether the suspect possessed any prior flight training or a pilot’s license. The swift arrival of law enforcement prevented any further attempts to move the aircraft or flee the scene.

Investigation and Aftermath

The investigation has expanded beyond local police to include federal agencies. Both the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are on-site to assist LAXPD. Their inquiry will likely focus on how the suspect breached the perimeter and accessed the aircraft keys or ignition system.

Crews were observed later in the morning extracting the damaged Cessna from the hangar wall and towing it back to the flight academy’s facility. Despite the dramatic nature of the event, airport operations at Van Nuys were not significantly disrupted, as the crash was contained within the flight school’s specific ramp area.

AirPro News Analysis: General Aviation Security

While commercial airports operate under the strict passenger screening protocols of the TSA, general aviation (GA) airports like Van Nuys face different security challenges. VNY is a massive facility with multiple access points for Private-Jets businesses, hangars, and flight schools. This incident highlights the vulnerability of “insider” areas where aircraft are parked.

Although rare, the theft of aircraft is a known risk in the aviation industry. In 2018, a ground service agent stole a Q400 turboprop from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, a tragedy that ended in a fatal crash. Fortunately, in this instance at Van Nuys, the suspect failed to achieve flight, preventing a potentially catastrophic outcome over the densely populated San Fernando Valley. We anticipate this event will trigger a review of after-hours key storage and perimeter security standards for flight schools operating at VNY.

Sources

• NBC Los Angeles
• KTLA 5
• CBS Los Angeles
• Patch / NTD News

This article summarizes reporting by AP News.

US Government Admits Liability in Fatal Collision Between American Eagle Jet and Army Helicopter

In a significant legal development following the deadliest United States aviation accident since 2001, the U.S. government has formally admitted liability for the mid-air collision that claimed 67 lives earlier this year. According to court filings submitted in December 2025, the Department of Justice acknowledged that negligence by both Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic controllers and U.S. Army pilots caused the tragedy.

The crash, which occurred on January 29, 2025, involved American Eagle Flight 5342 and a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter operating near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). As reported by AP News, the government’s admission comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the family of a victim, signaling a potential shift in how the remaining legal battles regarding the disaster will proceed.

Government Concedes Negligence in Court Filing

The lawsuit, filed by the family of passenger Casey Crafton, alleges that failures in communication and protocol led directly to the catastrophe. In a move that legal experts describe as unusually swift for complex aviation litigation, the government did not contest its role in the accident.

In the filing, the government stated that it:

“owed a duty of care to plaintiffs, which it breached.”

, U.S. Department of Justice filing, via AP News

By admitting liability, the government effectively removes the need for a trial to determine fault regarding its own agents (the FAA and the Army). The legal focus will likely shift toward determining the amount of damages owed to the families of the 64 people on the regional jet and the three crew members on the helicopter.

Operational Failures Behind the Crash

The collision occurred at night while the American Eagle CRJ700, operated by PSA Airlines, was on approach to DCA from Wichita, Kansas. The Black Hawk helicopter was conducting a training mission involving night vision goggles. Investigations cited by AP News and preliminary NTSB data highlight two primary causes for the disaster: air traffic control errors and pilot deviations.

FAA Controller Errors

According to the reports, the FAA controller at DCA utilized “visual separation” procedures, asking the helicopter pilots if they had the incoming jet in sight. Once the pilots confirmed they did, the controller transferred the responsibility for maintaining safe distance to the helicopter crew. Following the incident, the FAA has reportedly restricted the use of visual separation for helicopters operating in this congested airspace.

Army Pilot Deviations

The government’s admission also encompasses errors made by the Army flight crew. Investigators found that the helicopter was flying significantly higher than permitted for its specific route. While the limit for “Route 4” was 200 feet, the Black Hawk was operating between 278 and 300 feet, approximately 78 feet above the ceiling for that corridor.

Furthermore, technical discrepancies were noted in the helicopter’s equipment. The investigation revealed that the barometric altimeter may have displayed an altitude 80 to 100 feet lower than the aircraft’s actual position, potentially misleading the pilots. The use of night vision goggles was also cited as a factor that may have limited the crew’s peripheral vision and depth perception.

AirPro News Analysis

The speed at which the U.S. government admitted liability, less than a year after the incident, is notable. In many aviation disasters involving state actors, litigation can drag on for years over jurisdictional and immunity claims. We assess that this early admission is likely a strategic decision to limit the scope of discovery. By conceding fault now, the government may prevent a prolonged public trial that would expose granular, potentially sensitive details regarding military training operations and air traffic control systemic vulnerabilities in the nation’s capital.

Ongoing Legal Disputes with Airlines

While the government has accepted its share of the blame, the legal battle continues for the private carriers involved. American Airlines and its regional subsidiary, PSA Airlines, are also named defendants in the lawsuit. Both airlines have filed motions to dismiss the complaints against them, arguing that the sole responsibility lies with the government entities that controlled the airspace and the military aircraft.

Attorneys for the victims’ families, however, argue that the airlines failed to mitigate known risks associated with flying into the highly congested airspace around Washington, D.C. The outcome of these motions will determine whether the airlines must also pay damages or if the U.S. taxpayers will bear the full financial burden of the settlements.

Frequently Asked Questions

When is the final NTSB report expected?
The National Transportation Safety Board is expected to release its final report on the probable cause of the accident in early 2026.

What safety changes have been made since the crash?
The FAA has permanently closed the specific helicopter route (Route 4) involved in the crash. Additionally, regulators have prohibited the simultaneous use of certain runways at DCA during urgent helicopter missions and restricted visual separation procedures for helicopters.

How many people died in the accident?
The crash resulted in 67 total fatalities: 60 passengers and 4 crew members on the regional jet, and 3 crew members on the Army helicopter.

Sources

• AP News

This article is based on technical guidance and safety publications from Airbus and additional industry safety reports.

The Hidden Danger in the Gear: Why Wheel Bearing Maintenance Cannot Be Rushed

Aircraft wheel bearings are among the most stressed components in aviation. Despite supporting loads of up to 500 tons and enduring temperature shifts from sub-zero cruising altitudes to the intense heat of braking, they remain largely hidden from view. According to a technical safety publication by Airbus, the failure of these components is rarely due to design flaws but is almost exclusively the result of improper maintenance.

At AirPro News, we have reviewed the latest guidance from Airbus’s “Safety First” initiative, alongside broader industry data, to understand why these small components continue to pose significant risks to flight safety. The consensus across manufacturers and regulators is clear: strict adherence to maintenance protocols is the only barrier against catastrophic failure.

The Mechanics of Failure

The primary cause of bearing failure, as identified by Airbus and industry data, is maintenance error. Specifically, the issues revolve around incorrect torque application, contamination, and inadequate lubrication. Aircraft use “tapered roller bearings” designed to handle both the weight of the aircraft (radial loads) and side-to-side movement (axial loads). When these bearings are mistreated, the consequences are severe.

The “Double-Torque” Procedure

One of the most critical and frequently misunderstood aspects of wheel installation is the torque procedure. According to Airbus technical guidelines, a specific “double-torque” method is required to ensure the bearings are seated correctly without being overtightened.

The process generally involves three distinct steps:

1. Initial Seating: A high torque is applied while rotating the wheel. This step is crucial to “seat” the rollers and eliminate free play.
2. Back-off: The nut is loosened to relieve stress on the components.
3. Final Torque: A specific, lower torque is applied to set the correct “preload.”

The risk lies in the details. If a technician skips rotating the wheel during the initial torque application, the rollers may not align, leading to a false torque reading. This can result in loose bearings that vibrate and wear prematurely, or tight bearings that overheat and seize.

Real-World Consequences

The failure of a wheel bearing is not merely a maintenance inconvenience; it is a direct threat to the structural integrity of the aircraft. When a bearing seizes, it can generate enough friction to weld components together or shear axles, leading to wheel separation.

Airbus and TSB Canada Data

In one notable case study highlighted by Airbus, an A330 aircraft lost a wheel during takeoff. The investigation revealed that a seized bearing destroyed the axle nut, allowing the wheel to eject from the landing gear. This is not an isolated event. Data from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) underscores the prevalence of this issue.

“A study revealed 67 occurrences of nosewheel bearing failures on A319/A320/A321 aircraft worldwide between 1989 and 2004.”

— TSB Canada Data

Cross-Fleet Vulnerabilities

While the Airbus “Safety First” article focuses on their fleet, the physics of bearing failure applies universally. Reports from the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) detail an incident involving a Boeing 737-800 where a seized bearing generated sufficient heat to compromise the chrome plating and base metal of the axle, causing it to fracture.

Similarly, an investigation into an Embraer EMB-145 (registration G-EMBP) found that moisture contamination due to improper seal installation led to severe overheating and subsequent axle failure. These incidents confirm that regardless of the airframe manufacturer, the root causes, contamination and torque errors, remain consistent.

Industry Best Practices

To mitigate these risks, manufacturers and technical organizations like Timken have established “gold standard” maintenance manuals. The following practices are considered non-negotiable for airworthiness:

• Cleaning is Critical: Technicians must remove all old grease. Old lubricant can hide “spalling” (flaking metal) or heat discoloration (blue or straw-colored metal), which are early signs of fatigue and overheating.
• Pressure Packing: Hand-packing grease is often insufficient. Industry standards recommend using pressure packing tools to ensure grease penetrates behind the cage where the rollers contact the race.
• Grease Compatibility: Mixing clay-based and lithium-based greases can cause the mixture to break down, destroying its lubricating properties. Lithium-based grease is generally preferred for its water-repelling capabilities.
• Wheel Rotation: As emphasized in the torque procedure, the wheel must be rotated while tightening the nut to align the rollers.

AirPro News Analysis

The Human Factor in Maintenance

While the technical steps are well-documented, we believe the persistence of these failures points to a human factors challenge. Wheel bearings are “hidden” components; unlike a tire that shows visible tread wear, a bearing often looks pristine until the moment it fails catastrophically. This lack of visual feedback places an immense burden on the maintenance process itself.

In high-pressure line maintenance environments, the requirement to rotate a wheel while torquing it, a process that relies on “feel” and patience, can be a trap for technicians rushing to clear an aircraft for departure. The data suggests that safety in this domain relies less on new technology and more on a disciplined adherence to the basics: cleaning, inspecting, and respecting the torque procedure.

Regulatory Context

Regulators continue to monitor these risks closely. The FAA has previously issued Airworthiness Directives, such as AD 2012-10-09 for Cessna 560XL aircraft, following reports of brake failure linked to loose bearing components. Furthermore, the FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam) frequently issues alerts reminding operators that “grease is not just grease,” warning that using unapproved substitutes constitutes a violation of FAR Part 43.

Whether operating a General Aviation aircraft or a commercial airliner, the message from the industry is uniform: take care of the wheel bearings, and they will carry the load.

Sources

• Airbus “Safety First”: Take Care of the Wheel Bearings
• Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB)
• UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB)
• Timken
• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)